‘Australia can’t tackle Islamophobia without changing its counter-terrorism regime’

SYDNEY, Australia (MNTV) – Australian academics have warned that the country cannot meaningfully combat Islamophobia while maintaining a sweeping counter-terrorism regime that has, for more than two decades, institutionalised suspicion of Muslims, reports ABC. 

Gerhard Hoffstaedter, David Tittensor, Farida Fozdar and Adam Possamai, who are associated with universities across Australia, argue that the report by Aftab Malik, the country’s first Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, documents the symptoms of Islamophobia but misses its root cause — what they call “hyper-securitisation.”

“Islamophobia in Australia is not merely a collection of individual prejudices requiring education and awareness campaigns. Rather, it is the predictable outcome of what we term ‘hyper-securitisation’,” they write.

Since 2002, Australia has enacted more than 90 counter-terrorism laws — more than the United States, United Kingdom or Spain, despite never experiencing a major terrorist attack on home soil. 

Initially introduced as temporary post-9/11 measures, many have become permanent, with legal scholar Kent Roach describing the process as “hyper-legislation” that undermines the presumption of innocence and enables punishment for “pre-crimes.”

Although officially race-neutral, the measures have disproportionately affected Muslims. The majority of organisations banned under counter-terrorism laws identify as Islamic, reinforcing a climate of fear and suspicion. 

This legislative focus has persisted even as Australia’s intelligence agencies recognise changing risks.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) reported in 2021 that investigations into “ideologically motivated violent extremists, such as racist and nationalist violent extremists” had grown to nearly half its counter-terrorism caseload. 

In his 2024 assessment, the ASIO director-general said “fewer than half” of potential incidents were religiously motivated, with the majority linked to “mixed ideologies or nationalist and racist ideologies.”

Despite this shift, the surveillance and security apparatus aimed at Muslim communities has remained largely intact.

Comparative fieldwork in Perth, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane shows how hyper-securitisation shapes Muslim experiences differently.

Lebanese Muslims have often voiced criticism of the securitised environment, while Indonesian Muslims tend to see hostility as targeting specific ethnic groups rather than Islam in its entirety.

“This divergence illuminates a troubling outcome of hyper-securitisation: the internalisation of the ‘good Muslim’ and ‘bad Muslim’ distinction,” the researchers note. “Some Muslim communities distance themselves from others deemed more suspect, hoping to avoid scrutiny.”

Missing the root cause

The Special Envoy’s report recommends education programs, media reforms, hate-crime laws and community grants. Yet it makes only a single reference to counter-terrorism legislation, endorsing the Human Rights Commission’s call for an independent review.

The academics argue this omission is crucial. Independent reviews in 2012 and 2016 urged repealing certain powers, but no substantial change followed. 

“How can we meaningfully combat Islamophobia while maintaining a legal framework which institutionalises suspicion of Australian Muslims?” the researchers ask. 

They say genuine progress requires moving toward trust-based security partnerships, and ending political rhetoric that frames Muslims as threats rather than citizens.

The Special Envoy’s report, they acknowledge, is an important first step. But they insist that unless Australia confronts the counter-terrorism laws that underpin systemic suspicion, Islamophobia will remain entrenched.

“Until we address this root cause, we will continue treating symptoms even as the disease spreads,” they warn.